Colin,

They didn't offer - which I thought, after what they'd admitted, was a bit surprising. I felt entitled to another and think if I'd demanded it they would probably have acquiesed - but to be honest, after I'd made my point, I just wanted shot of the whole episode. I doubt I'd use them again, but if I did (and in future would demand this of any agency) I'd first want details of the Reader and the credentials that make them appropriate before submitting the manuscript.

Andrea

If the agency work for gets a complaint, the boss reads the ms and compares it to the report. If she thinks the reader's been unfair, brief or abrupt, the clients gets a free second opinion.

Faze

<Added>


that should be 'I work for' (call myself an editor)

f

My previous agent used to show me her readers' reports on my books. However, she said I was one of the few of her authors she did this with because she knew I could take criticism. Without for a second making any comment on other peoples' experiences on this thread (although I know from experience of Andrea's writing that she would not have deserved a report like the one she describes above), the other side of this story is that many writers do find it hard to take criticism.

In my case, I found the reports on my fiction often to be very helpful, and in one case I completely re-wrote the book because of what the reader recommended. By contrast, I saw a report on a non-fiction book I wrote that the reader must have been in danger of exploding with anger from. She absolutely savaged it; thought it was arrogant, assumptive, full of preaching ... well, let's just say she didn't like it very much. Believe it or not, I understood her view. The book was about a master-pupil relationship and I suspected either someone would respond to it, or they'd hate it. The only irony was that she thought it was preposterous nonsense when it was actually based on personal experience!

what you say here Terry is true but I am not talking harsh criticism here but rudeness, unprofessionalism and hidden agendas and ineptitude. I know the difference between that and harsh crits. I welcome fair, constructive hard crits.

Sometimes you receive criticism and something becomes clear to you, and you rewrite. Some people can' t take it and go mad, and in my experience these writers are those that don't get it anyway, so nothing makes sense to them (I could go on . . .).

But when criticism is outside of informed comment, sales issues and personal taste, then there is a problem. It's also worth saying that the majority of manuscripts sent to agents are very flawed and won't be sent to a reader. Only a handful are reported on.

Thing is, if the agent trusts the reader, the reader can skim, lie and take the money. No one is any the wiser. This is what I realized this week. I'm not saying that what's happened here is the norm though.

F

Jai, Ashley,

Point taken, Jai. Both your experiences sound very unpleasant. What's strange is that in both cases the agent appears to be avoiding responsibility by hiding behind their reader's report while at the same time agreeing the report's not fair! The professional approach surely would have been to consider the reader's report then make their own decision and inform you accordingly (at the most, just making reference to the report). Now I think of it, I guess with my agent, in showing me her readers' reports, there was an element of her being able to transfer a rejection decision to someone else. It could well be that this is a back-handed kind of compliment: that you're good writers, and the agent knows you are, but he/she also knows that in the current commercialised publishing environment she would have trouble selling your work. Rather than tell you this (which can sound like an admission to failure on her part), it's easier to have someone else tell you that the writing itself is no good. Certainly, I've had rejections from publishers that require such reading between the lines, And agents/editors have told me that sometimes when turning down someone an agent/editor know is a good writer, they will point to writing faults that aren't really relevant or actual, rather than have to admit they aren't really looking for good stuff that doesn't fit their market projections.

Terry

Terry

again you seem to be rather missing the point - weakness in the writing comes under constructive criticism and you take it on board and rewrite, of course. But again the TONE of these reports, the inaccuracies, the attitude under the surface indicates as I said ineptitude, unprofessionalism and hidden agendas. if someone was merely pointing out bad writing I have no qualms about that and just to defend myself here I have had GOOD reports indicating how strong the writing is, etc etc etc etc. It's not a question of pointing out weak writing - more a tone and ineptitude and basically getting somthing utterly wrong. completely different thing.

I think you're starting to argue about different things here. Terry, that idea of knocking someone's writing rather than tell them they just don't want to pitch this genre/idea feels like children's spite, ie "I don't want you, but I don't want anyone else to have you, just in case". Still, maybe a writer would feel even more cheated by an honest response that says these things. I'd be gutted if everyone agreed that my work was good, the story was good, it would even sell: but try someone else. I don't think you could get a more frustrating response.

I think I started with a point, but I've forgotten what it is. Jardinery, I get your point and would be just as angry if I received a glowing report the praised character traits or situations that I'd never written either - the other side of the coin. The annoyance is the same, the reader just hasn't done their job.

Question: can you request reader's reports from an agent that considers a full MSS?

Colin M

Jai,

Sorry, I thought I was agreeing with you: that these reports were not necessarily reflecting bad writing but serving some other (undisclosed) purpose and/or showing that these particular agents don't appear to have very good readers working for them. As for the tone – well, again, I'd say that's down to the agent. The agent should make it clear to the reader what kind of tone he/she requires and what the report may be used for, e.g. will it be shown to the writer? I did a few reports for my agent and to be fair to her, she told me that she might well show them to the writers (which she did in the event) and that she wanted me to be fair and, if I didn't like a book, not to be rude about it (which I wouldn't do anyway).

Terry

Hi - Colin, et al

.RE I'd be gutted if everyone agreed that my work was good, the story was good, it would even sell: but try someone else. I don't think you could get a more frustrating response.

This is the response I'm getting. One even said it would win prizes and they all seem to say - another agent will snap it up???


Question: can you request reader's reports from an agent that considers a full MS?

I don't think so. You could try. Usually, it's best to leave an agent alone if they've rejected you. They obviously think they can't make any money out of you for whatever reason.

I prefered the old system where you didn't need an agent until you had a book deal.

F

I find it worrying that agents would deliberately fault find, rather than reject on the grounds of unsuitability. Plenty of rejections say, "This is brilliant, but it's not what we're looking for/not the type of writing we represent/not saleable in the current market." What is to be gained by rubbishing a manuscript that works? Shyama

<Added>

Faze: re the glowing rejections, they seem to be quite common. One thing I've noticed about selling manuscripts is that it's like any branch of retail. If you're selling cakes, you can go and talk to the haberdasher, they'll admire your cakes and even taste them, but ultimately they don't sell cakes and so they'll still send you away. Writers really need to target the agents they send to: it's not as random as it looks. A lot of new writers seem to sent to any agent who says they're willing to look at unsolicited manuscripts, but the same rule of specialisation applies here too, and good manuscripts will be rejected, not because they are not saleable, but because that particular agent is not geared to sell it. Yikes!! Shyama

Shyama,

First, there's not much point in us looking for rational, consistent behaviour in the way agents deal with writers. They're all different, and they all have moods, off days, etc.

Second, unfortunately, the kind of rejection remark you quote above is not always entirely truthful, but sometimes designed more to ensure you won't question them further, i.e. if they were to give you specific reasons why the book doesn't work, you may come back and challenge them. And to be fair, their time is usually too tight to spend dealing with people they don't want to represent anyway.

Third, yes, there's nothing to be gained by rubbishing a manuscript. The point I was trying to make was that some agents, with some writers – either their own or one they have acknowledged is good who's seeking to be represented by them – can hide behind a third party's report as a reason for turning down a book. This can backfire on them if the report is rude or unfair, of course. But if it points to what are (in the reader's view) technical problems with the writing, the agent can say, Well, I liked it but ... Yes, it seems crazy that an agent would turn down a book they think is well-written, but believe me this happens all the time. Good writing is only one of many things an agent/editor considers today: what's just as important (to them) is what the market is doing, or appears to be doing, whether they can sell it to their sales/accounts people (i.e. convince them it will sell), and what the writer is in terms of looks, age, gender, ethnic background, celebrity, etc.


Terry

Terry, I think I'm in complete agreement with you. Good writing alone is not enough to sell a book, just as good engineering alone is not enough to sell a car. There are all sorts of other considerations when it comes to putting a manuscript on the market, and I meant to endorse that thought, not challenge it. Sorry!! What I was incensed by was the thought of agents/readers creating spurious reasons for rejection when there are so many standard lines that do the job without causing offence... Ah well. we live and learn:-)

Wow man, that sounds tough.

I recently had my first experience of that world and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

I submitted my first completed manuscript to a consultancy that was recommended by a friend. I knew the book wasn't brilliant, but I thought it offered some merit. But most of all, it was my work and I had enjoyed writing it.

When the manuscript came back from the appointed reader, the report was a stinker. The reader called my work clichéd and said the narrative voice was poor.

In fact the only real encouragement he could offer me was the fact that I had actually been able to write 95,000 words!

Still, after several reads through the report I realised that he was right. I had to agree that the story, characters and events - despite being based on real people and incidents - were hackneyed. But I guess that's what happens when you grow up in the places I depicted in my book, rather than the sticks.

The narrative style that I though was spare and unobtrusive was actually dull and stilted. But again, I've spent my time as a journalist and have been relatively successful keeping people informed with this style of writing.

The report gnawed away at me and I went on to the internet to find out more about the reader. I discovered a couple of his short stories and downloaded them. They had skill and style, but not much imagination, two-dimensional characters and very little story-telling ability. I thought they were pretentious and left no emotional impact on me after I had read them.

The reader did not like my stuff and I did not like his - but at least I could see the merit and the value in what he had done. I would support and offer him as much encouragement as possible because he obviously loves what he does - just like me.

I felt the reader’s report of my book was written without any reflection on what his purpose was or how it would be received. No consideration for the story or me as a writer - or a person - and was more to do with his skills, experience and craft than my pathetic wish for another writer to look at my work.

Sad huh?

Beadle,

That's a great posting – you've managed to encompass a vast range of emotions, reactions, purposes and attitudes connected with the ridiculous ambition we writers have to put their stories into the heads of complete strangers.

It sounds as if you got a positive experience out of this report despite what sounds like justified reservations you have about the reader. It's so important to be able to do this, and not do the opposite, i.e. reject criticism because you've found reason not to respect the writing ability of the critic. Of course, this makes your job harder, because if a reader either doesn't know the mechanics of good writing, or does but can't apply it to their own work, how can they possibly help you to do the same? But it doesn't matter if it's helped you to see some actual faults in your writing.

I'm slightly surprised that you were sent a stinker of a report. I do manuscript reviews for an agency and they don't send out negative reports, on the basis that it's never good to destroy a writer's confidence. Having said that, speaking from the a reviewer's point of view, you do read manuscripts occasionally where it's very difficult to find anything positive to say at all.

Your last two paragraphs, for me, exemplify the kind of balanced attitude a writer needs if he's to succeed. All the same, it does sound like you may have a serious case for a refund from this agency!

Terry